From: Tom <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:29:13 +0100
Message-ID: <5366682.qrCZ1Gi3bP@garp>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgR3Tyk+RkNQS0Y2kpRp5bzaQJURQq4br9sQCuGoRQ7Ydg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160510185728.GA1149@fedora-21-dvm>
	<CAH6h1LuemHi1Z8REhZRywghaLjAzy1e1LeHxVdA7iBifGnLnJA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgR3Tyk+RkNQS0Y2kpRp5bzaQJURQq4br9sQCuGoRQ7Ydg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making AsicBoost irrelevant
Precedence: list

On Wednesday 11 May 2016 22:58:48 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Timo Hanke via bitcoin-dev
> 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > This is what I meant. If existing hardware gets forked-out it will
> > inevitably lead to the creation of an altcoin. Simply because the hardware
> > exists and can't be used for anything else both chains will survive. I was
> > only comparing the situation to a contentious hardfork that does not fork
> > out any hardware. If the latter one is suspected to lead to the permanent
> > existence of two chains then a hardfork that forks out hardware is even
> > more likely to do so (I claim it's guaranteed).
> 
> There are already many altcoins out there, we could not prevent that
> even if we wanted to. New ones are created all the time.

Comparing apples and oranges.

Altcoins have their own genesis block, the example Timo was talking about was 
a fork in the Bitcoin blockchain.

But its good to know you don't mind a fork in the Bitcoin chain, I'll remember 
that.